The absence of ingredients of a specific criminal offence and the need to balance apprehensions raised by the prosecution with the right of the accused to seek anticipatory bail.

JUDGMENT

Ravi Cheemalapati, J. - This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 438 of Criminal Procedure Code ('Cr.P.C' in short), seeking anticipatory bail, by the petitioners/Accused Nos. 5 and 6 in Crime No. 73 of 2022 of Gajulamandyam Police Station, Tirupathi Urban District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 324 read with 34 IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 28.05.2022 at about 7.30 a.m., there was a quarrel between A.2 and Shakunthala and then Jagadish, who is son of Shakunthala came and questioned A.2 and the villagers pacified the same. Keeping the said incident in mind, on 29.05.2022, A.1 to A.4 picked up quarrel with Jagadish and beat him with hands, kicked with legs, assaulted with an iron rod and right eye, caused bleeding injuries and when Jagadish tried to escape from them, A.5 and A.6 caught hold him and beat him with hands and bitten on his back and caused bleeding injuries. Hence, the above crime was registered against the petitioners.

3. Heard Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Soora Venkat Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in elaboration, contended that the complaint attached to the F.I.R., shows that the allegations are against A.1 to A.4 only and there are no allegations against A.5 and A.6. A plain reading of the complaint, prima facie shown that there are no allegations against the petitioners with regard to the offence under Section 307 IPC and at the most the overacts attributed against them may attract the offences under Sections 323 and 324 IPC. The petitioners are being ladies, prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

5. On the other hand, the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that though Section 307 IPC is not there, the earlier bail application filed by the petitioners vide Crl.M.P. No. 325 of 2022 before the Sessions Court was dismissed on 27.06.2022 and after that, the petitioners approached this Court by filing Crl.P. No. 4624 of 2022 and the same was withdrawn on 18.07.2022 and to the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they filed a copy of case status details of Crl.P. No. 4624 of 2022. However, the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application on the ground that if the bail is granted, the petitioners may not cooperate with the investigation and they may threaten the witnesses and prayed for dismissal of bail.

6. On perusal of the material placed on record, as there are no ingredients of Section 307 IPC against the petitioners and taking into consideration the submissions made by both the counsel, this Court inclined to grant bail to the petitioners by duly taking the apprehensions made by the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor into consideration with the following conditions:

(i) The petitioners shall be released on bail on their executing self bond for Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) each with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer, Gajulamandyam Police Station, Tirupathi Urban District;

(ii) On release, the petitioners shall appear before the Station House Officer, Gajulamandyam Police Station, Tirupathi Urban District once in a week i.e., on every Sunday between 9.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon till the charge sheet is filed.

(iii) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly contact the complainant or any other witnesses under any circumstances and any such attempt shall be construed as an attempt of influencing the witnesses and shall not tamper the evidence and shall co-operate with the trial.

Further, the petitioners shall scrupulously comply with the above conditions and if there is breach of any of the above conditions, it will be viewed seriously and it also entails cancellation of the bail and in such case prosecution shall move appropriate application for such cancellation.

It is